list_dags

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a safe, read-only operation via the word 'List' and scopes results to DAGs 'known to the server.' However, it does not mention potential pagination, authentication requirements, or any edge-case behavior; for a simple no-parameter list tool, this level is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('List') and immediately specifies the object and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the operation is a simple list, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether results are paginated or limited, but that may be covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 parameters baselines at 4, and the description says nothing contradictory or redundant about parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('ETL orchestration DAGs known to the server'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dag_status, which focuses on status rather than enumeration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'known to the server' implies a discovery/enumeration use case, and siblings like get_dag_status and search_etl_logs signal obvious alternatives, but no explicit guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.